Fishback

Fishback v. County of Ventura

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 4th 896·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1663·2005 Daily Journal DAR 12739·35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 199·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9370
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 26, 2005B177462California3,377 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

What is a legal subdivision according to the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) as it existed in the 1930’s and 1940’s? The answer to this esoteric question has profound consequences today.

The SMA defined a subdivision as a division of land into five or more parcels in any one-year period. We conclude that on the creation of a fifth parcel within a one-year period, the previous four parcels created during that same one-year period are a subdivision. We also conclude that lands retained by the subdivider are parcels within the definition of a subdivision. We affirm.

FACTS

Early History

On March 27, 1940, Nathan and Augusta Wolfe conveyed to the LA-Ventura Land Co. (LA Land) a 140-acre parcel in an unincorporated area of Simi Valley in Ventura County (parent parcel). In September of 1940, LA Land recorded a survey of the southern portion of the parent parcel. The survey purported to divide the southern portion of the land into 15 parcels.

Beginning September 7, 1940, and ending August 16, 1941, LA Land conveyed 10 parcels from the parent parcel to various grantees. The conveyances left LA Land with four parcels. Thus the conveyances carved 14 parcels from the parent…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.